ObamaCare: Repeal It, Don’t ‘Repair’ It; Nix It – Don’t ‘Fix’ It

In the coming months, as in the past few weeks, some opponents of ObamaCare will be tempted for various reasons to attempt repairs on the Frankenstein monster that is ObamaCare. But, like a gangrenous limb that must be amputated in order to save the body, Barack ObamaCare must be removed from the body politic.

No attempt should be made to “repair” the irreparable. No lure should be accepted to “fix” what must be nixed.

The contours of the fight to come are clear from recent events: Obama Dimocrats who rammed the Obama health scam through congress even as the public opposed Obamacare see the coming train wreck and want to redistribute blame to include Republicans who unanimously opposed Obama’s health scam legislation; foolish Republicans who think their party needs to once again be rebranded as “compassionate conservatives” are looking for tactical refinements to ObamaCare.

To repeal or dismantle? That is the internal debate roiling House Republicans as they plot their strategy on the landmark 2010 health care law, as its implementation accelerates.

Recognizing that neither President Barack Obama nor the Democratic Senate will entertain legislation that fully repeals the Affordable Care Act, House GOP leaders are pushing their conference to embrace a series of messaging bills altering or dismantling pieces of the law to publicize for voters what Republicans argue are the statute’s many failed and damaging policies. Their goal is to turn the law into an issue they can use against Democrats in the 2014 midterms.

But rank-and-file Republicans, particularly freshmen and sophomore members, worry that any legislation to repeal a portion of the law could be interpreted by their constituents as strengthening it. Or worse, many Republicans fear that repealing broadly unpopular parts of the Affordable Care Act, such as the medical-device tax, might strengthen voters’ opinion of the law, decreasing the possibility that political pressure for full repeal will mount as a predicted messy implementation progresses.

“In February, Cantor proposed a variety of initiatives to move the party “beyond the fiscal debate” and toward the “millions of Americans who just want their life to work again.” His proposals included changing comp and flex time, revising worker training, and helping people with preexisting medical conditions.

But Wednesday’s rebellion shows a flaw in the plan. In this case, Democrats opposed the bill because it proposed changes to Obamacare, which they considered an attempt to undermine the program. That meant the measure would pass only with near-unanimous Republican support, which seemed unlikely because conservative groups such as the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation spinoff Heritage Action opposed it, arguing that it wouldn’t repeal Obamacare.

At the conservatives’ luncheon, the nine lawmakers dutifully parroted these arguments. “We’re shifting money from one part of Obamacare we don’t support to another part of Obamacare we don’t support. That’s a non-starter for me,” Amash said.”

From ObamaCare supporters the argument is that “implementation” is the problem and that it might be a political problem because ObamaCare will be implemented in an election year.

It was always going to be difficult to implement Obamacare, but even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.

Implementation got off to a bad start because the Obama administration didn’t want to release unpopular rules before the election. Regulators have been working hard but are clearly overwhelmed, trying to write rules that influence the entire health care sector — an economic unit roughly the size of France. Republicans in Congress have made things much more difficult by refusing to provide enough money for implementation.

By now, everybody involved seems to be in a state of anxiety. Insurance companies are trying to put out new products, but they don’t know what federal parameters they have to meet. Small businesses are angry because the provisions that benefited them have been put on the back burner. Health care systems are highly frustrated. They can’t plan without a road map. Senator Max Baucus, one of the authors of the law, says he sees a “huge train wreck” coming.

I’ve been talking with a bipartisan bunch of health care experts, trying to get a sense of exactly how bad things are. In my conversations with this extremely well-informed group of providers, academics and former government officials, I’d say there is a minority, including some supporters of the law, who think the whole situation is a complete disaster. They predict Obamacare will collapse and do serious damage to the underlying health system.

Obama protector and endorser David Brooks thinks in the end things will be “shambolic messiness” but then we will be in a “new normal”. What is the “new normal”? For Brooks this means that “The law’s biggest defenders will then become insurance companies and health care corporations. Having spent billions of dollars adapting to the new system, they are not going to want to see it repealed or replaced.” But first come the problems:

“The experts talk about the problems that lie ahead in cascades. First, there is what you might call the structural cascade. Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned. The Supreme Court decision made the Medicaid piece more complicated. The decision by many states not to set up exchanges made the exchange piece more complicated. The lines of accountability between, for example, state and federally run exchanges have grown byzantine and unclear.

A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling. That could lead people to freeze up. Insurance companies will hesitate before venturing into state exchanges, thereby limiting competition and choice. Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.

Then there is the technical cascade. At some point, people are going to sit at computers and enroll. If the data process looks like some 1990s glitchmonster, if information doesn’t flow freely, then the public opinion hit will be catastrophic.

Then there is the cost cascade. Nearly everybody not in the employ of the administration agrees this law does not solve the cost problem, and many of the recent regulatory decisions will send costs higher. [snip]

Then there is the adverse selection cascade. Under the law, young healthy people subsidize poorer, sicker and older people. But the young may decide en masse that it is completely irrational for them to get health insurance that subsidizes others while they are healthy. They’ll be better off paying the fines, if those are even enforced, and opting out. Without premiums from the young, everybody else’s costs go up even higher.

Then there is the provider concentration cascade.”

We won’t quote further from Brooks regarding the problems of ObamaCare. The point that Brooks and others are loathe to admit is that the problems with ObamaCare are not just “implementation”. The problem is that ObamaCare is a Chicago scam that loots the economy to pay for worse health care.

Some ObamaCare gurus think the problem is not even implementation. Can you guess what they think the problem is? It’s that old standby: messaging. But even Obama protecting Politico writes that ObamaCare 2.0 is “shaky like 1.0″.

“Democratic Senators Tell White House of Concerns About Health Care Law Rollout

WASHINGTON — Democratic senators, at a caucus meeting with White House officials, expressed concerns on Thursday about how the Obama administration was carrying out the health care law they adopted three years ago.

Democrats in both houses of Congress said some members of their party were getting nervous that they could pay a political price if the rollout of the law was messy or if premiums went up significantly. [snip]

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who is up for re-election next year, said, “We are hearing from a lot of small businesses in New Hampshire that do not know how to comply with the law.”

In addition, Mrs. Shaheen said, “restaurants that employ people for about 30 hours a week are trying to figure out whether it would be in their interest to reduce the hours” of those workers, so the restaurants could avoid the law’s requirement to offer health coverage to full-time employees. [snip]

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on health care, said he was extremely upset with Mr. Obama’s decision to take money from public health prevention programs and use it to publicize the new law, which creates insurance marketplaces in every state.

“I am greatly disappointed — beyond upset — that the administration chose to help pay for the Affordable Care Act in fiscal year 2013 by raiding the Public Health and Prevention Fund,” Mr. Harkin said.

The administration said it had transferred $332 million from the prevention fund to pay for “education and outreach” activities publicizing the new insurance markets, or exchanges.

To express his displeasure, Mr. Harkin has blocked Senate action on Mr. Obama’s nominee to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Marilyn B. Tavenner. [snip]

Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, said he told White House officials on Thursday that he was concerned about big rate increases being sought by the largest health insurer in his state. [snip] The company said the higher premiums reflected costs of complying with the new law. [snip]

Congressional leaders wrestled at the same time with a more parochial concern, health insurance for members of Congress and their aides.

A provision of the 2010 law, sought by a Republican senator, says members of Congress and many of their aides must get their health benefits through the new insurance exchanges. Some lawmakers and their aides are worried that the government may not continue to pay its share of the premiums.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, said this was the “Democrats’ problem to solve.”

The problems with the ObamaCare health scam are not merely a matter of implementation or messaging. John A. Boehner might be learning, if reports are to be believed:

“The fact that Democratic leaders want to opt themselves out of the Obamacare exchanges shows that Sen. Baucus isn’t the only one who realizes the president’s health care law is a ‘train wreck,’” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

“The speaker would like to see resolution of this problem, along with the other nightmares created by Washington Democrats’ health law, which is why he supports full repeal,” Steel added. “In the meantime, it is Democrats’ problem to solve. He will not sneak any language into bills to solve it for them — and the Democratic leadership knows that.”

“McConnell spokesman Brian McGuire told Breitbart News, “Senator McConnell does not support, and is not involved in drafting, legislation that would do special favors for Congress when his constituents are still facing the increased premiums and taxes, the mountains of red tape, the loss of health care plans they like and want to keep and fewer jobs under Obamacare.”

“It’s no surprise that Democrats would want to exempt themselves from the train wreck they created in Obamacare,” McGuire continued, “but Sen. McConnell believes the entire country should be exempt from this historic mistake. The law is a disaster and needs to be repealed.”

That must be the answer. Repeal. Ram it right down Barack Obama’s throat in 2014. Kill ObamaCare before it kills you.

Ed Markey knows he is not doing as well as he should be doing in the Massachusetts special election so the attack ads have started. This one came out today but we doubt it is a very smart ad considering the Boston Terror Bombing. Bin Laden isn’t dead he just changed his name to Tsarnaev.

Like the Iraq war tarnished the Republican brand, ObamaCare could be a long-term political millstone for Democrats.

At Tuesday’s press conference, President Obama delivered an unfocused eight-minute defense of his central legislative accomplishment in office – the Affordable Care Act. In the face of intraparty criticism that implementation of his health care law will be a “train wreck,” new polls showing support for the law near all-time lows, and even the Democratic nominee in next week’s House special election calling the law “extremely problematic”– there’s plenty of evidence piling up to believe health care will be a political millstone for Democrats in 2014.

In fact, the legacy of the Iraq war to Republicans during the Bush administration offers a useful reference to how the implementation of Obama’s health care law could play out politically for his party. [snip]

Support for the war dropped as officials struggled to implement nation-building after the fall of Saddam Hussein. As casualties piled up and the violence worsened, the fringe position of the liberal base gradually became more palatable. No longer were war-critiquing Democrats seen as soft on national security. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats effectively campaigned on an anti-war message to take back the majority in the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years, capitalizing on war weariness. Eventually a number of Republicans split from the party to save their political hide.

While the debate over Obama’s health care law isn’t a life-or-death battle, health care affects voter livelihood (and their voting decisions) like few other issues do. And there are clear signs that if premiums go up, businesses are forced to change how they insure their employees, and implementation of the law is uneven, the potential for political consequences are significant. In the 2010 midterms, Democrats suffered a historic landslide when the debate over health care was abstract. The stakes could be even higher when voters have first-hand experience with its effects. (Just look at the fevered reaction from Hill staffers affected by the law for a sampling of how intense voter anger could become.)

In both examples, the presidential sales pitch ended up being overhyped, with promises made that couldn’t realistically be achieved. At its heart, the mission to oust Saddam Hussein was about preventing a dangerous tyrant from using weapons of mass destruction – but administration officials advocated everything from democracy promotion to preventing an alliance between Iraq and al-Qaida as part of its overall argument. When events turned south, failure to achieve many of the items on the checklist proved politically embarrassing.

Obama’s health care law was designed to expand access to the uninsured. It’s a noble goal, if not necessarily a smart political priority. (It’s more popular to advocate for improved health care, not expanded access.) But to win support for the law, Obama claimed it would lower costs, improve the quality of care and not force anyone off their current health care plan. That’s not shaping up to be the case. Premiums are rising, employer uncertainty is growing and voters aren’t viewing the law favorably – with many not even aware of the frontloaded benefits already in place. And even on the access side, the law of unintended consequences is kicking in: Some large retail companies are cutting back employee hours so they won’t have to offer health insurance. That’s not good for the economy or health care access.

The conventional wisdom today is that the incessant conservative drumbeat against ObamaCare, is confined to the base and that the more “mainstream” position would be to accept and improve the legislation. (Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat makes a persuasive case on the policy side of that argument this week.) But politically speaking, it sounds awfully similar to the advice moderate Democrats advocated as public support for the Iraq war dipped – change strategy in Iraq, but don’t advocate for withdrawal. What became the winning political position, and what propelled Barack Obama into the presidency over Hillary Clinton, was an unequivocal opposition to the war.

Likewise, the advocates for repeal may now hold the upper hand politically, especially if there’s blowback as the health care law gets implemented. Every problem with health care, fairly or unfairly, will be blamed on Democrats. Like Republicans with Iraq, Democrats own the issue, and the headwinds coming with it in future elections.“

Admin: the problem I see with the Republican Party and Obama care, is this is something that the establishment republicans actually favor, because it brings them lobbyist money from the health care industry and they originally proposed it. Obama stole them, but the establishment Republicans would like to get them back. Just another group of party before country traitors–RINOS and DINOS. Therefore, it will be up to the grass roots and their supporters in Congress to shame the establishment Republicans into letting Obamacare die the agonizing death it deserves, rather than ruin our economy and health care system.

While the debate over Obama’s health care law isn’t a life-or-death battle, health care affects voter livelihood (and their voting decisions) like few other issues do. And there are clear signs that if premiums go up, businesses are forced to change how they insure their employees, and implementation of the law is uneven, the potential for political consequences are significant. In the 2010 midterms, Democrats suffered a historic landslide when the debate over health care was abstract. The stakes could be even higher when voters have first-hand experience with its effects.
—————
I wish the American Sheeple could connect cause and effect, but the 2008 and 2012 elections prove otherwise.

Watch for jokers like Grassley, Hatch, Graham, McCain, Murkowski, Collins, and their ilk to try to save Obamacare, for the reasons suggested above. Let us hope that Gomez loses to Markey because he is also a RINO. Gomez voted for Obama, and was originally in favor of Obamacare.

Markey is a known commodity. He is another Dennis K. I used to see him around the Congressional dining room and he always struck me as a space cadet. But I will say this much for him: what you see is what you get, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

Wbboei, you may be right. The quotes from Boehner and McConnell are very good. However this is the little noticed portion of the Harry Reid interview from today in which he says ObamaCare needs more money:

First shot fired today for 2016 election. Rand Paul is going after Hillary. He is definately running and he is gunning for her now because he wants Benghazi pinned on her.

I just knew this was going to get dumped on her.
___________________________________________________

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): We’ve been asking for months to interview those who were there. How can we try to prevent something like this from happening again if we don’t exactly know what happened and what went wrong there. The one thing that we do know for certain is that Hillary Clinton when she was asked, ‘did you read the cables asking for more security there,’ and when she said no that really alarmed me.

The person in charge of the State Department never read any of the cries for help, any of the pleas for help. And then her department denied these requests for enhanced security, and that I think is really a dereliction of duty and should preclude her from holding any kind of position where she’d be in that kind of authority again. (The Kuhner Report, May 2, 2013) (via MFPolitics)

Shadowfax, Rand Paul also has to be careful in a Rick Lazio way. Rand Paul is not black nor a Dimocrat so he will not be able to trash Hillary without consequences. He sure does not want his history of treatment of women and Aqua Buddha to return.

Rand Paul and the Republicans screwed up the Benghazi hearings and Hillary beat them over the head. It was Rand Paul who particularly screwed up in how he presented his questions as even the most fervent Benghazi truth activists admit. The best strategy for Republicans and Rand Paul is to demand answers and prod and subpoena. Get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. It does not help anyone when Rand Paul takes to the senate floor to draw conclusions about what happened before the House hearings next week.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are on thin ice when they discuss foreign policy. If Rand Paul wants to help the Benghazi investigation it behooves him to watch his mouth and measure his words. Rand Paul should step back from the mikes and cede the stage to Trey Gowdy and the House Republicans.

Hillary Clinton and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will be the featured attractions at next month’s Clinton Global Initiative in Chicago, according to a release going out from the group Thursday. The focus of the gathering, which will take place June 13-14, is on speeding up the United States’ economic recovery and the nation’s long-term outlook. But the short-term political outlook will be equally interesting, given that Clinton and Christie top most 2016 polls in their respective parties. It marks the first time Hillary Clinton will appear at CGI America, which has become a signature event in her husband’s post-White House portfolio. The event will also feature Chelsea Clinton, Clinton ally and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and a slew of business, labor and government officials.http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/hillary-clinton-chris-christie-clinton-global-initiative-90871.html

The principle of sunk costs is at play. Those states that have already spent on this monstrosity from hell are not going to want to admit that they have been throwing taxpayer funds down a bottomless money pit that any policy person with 6 months experience could have told them would never work. The definition of sunk costs from Wikipedia is “In economics and business decision-making, sunk costs are retrospective (past) costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered.” It is not going to get any better. It is only going to get worse and more costly. Soon we can start trying to quantify human deaths and suffering to factor costs. Where are the House of Representative hearings to examine this and make it public?

South Carolina House Passes Bill Making ‘Obamacare’ Implementation A Crime!!

“The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

The measure permits the state Attorney General, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.

­Earlier this year in her state of the state address, Gov. Nikki Haley said that South Carolina does not want and cannot afford the president’s plan, “not now, not ever.”

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington,” she said. “Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The nullification bill moved on to the state Senate Thursday and referred to the Committee on Finance.”

This article, Admin, makes me feel really good about my argument with my D friend over the weekend. He is the one that inferred that HRCs health care bill was no good because it did not pass, and Os was because it passed. He passed a piece of shxt because he had a majority, and nothing more.

Benghazi, bring it on. Because they are crying wolf with it all the time now, with no new evidence, people will become immuned to it. If anything really comes out, people will not even listen as they have made it a household word, and people will not listen.

A friend of mine, with deep roots in the newspaper business, claimed that big media embraced the radical left wing (not to be confused with liberal) agenda as a defense against FOX. This unequivocal support has taken them down dark alleys and forced them to deny things that are as plain as the nose on your face. And now that everything is starting to implode, they will be seen as responsible, and will have to live with themselves. My view is that those who work at NBC, CNN and ABC are moral degenerates, or they would not be working their and pedaling their Goebalistic lies which are wrecking the country, my my friend is inclined to take a benign view. And while FOX is far from perfect, in today’s wasteland, they have become the gold standard for many who used to be loyal fans of mainstream media.

Larry takes the Beghazi situation seriously. He and a couple of his special ops bloggers are contending with a troll who is contending that this is all just politics, and no one is responsible for the death of the ambassador and three other individuals, which is the official position of the Administration, and mores the pity Admiral Mullen. This particular quote caught my eye, because it nails the way the Obama/Soros machine does business. It is how their propaganda machine works. Big media knows this, and many of the reporters at NBC, CNN and ABC are plugged into it, and parrot the same talking points. This is how jurolisterism works, and it is high time people wake up. It is a factor, except instead of mass producing widgets, it mass produces lies to bamboozle sheeple.
—————————————–

Avatar
Retired_from_SPOnaj • 9 hours ago

Larry, This story must’ve hit a nerve somewhere if the Oborg sleeper cell have been awakened. Remember the old saying, “Drop your cocks and grab your socks?” The Oborg counterpart to that is, “Stop your fantasy online roleplay, go to the OFA talking points website, login, and get your canned answers.”

I maintain that the Republican Party is a house in ruins. They pose as the party of the American People, but they are controlled by establishment who do what is good for the establishment, not the American People. They savage those rising stars who speak for the American People–Cruz, Lee, Paul and they recruit otherwise promising jurnolists to spread their lies. They can run Rubio, but he will not get the white vote. This gang of 8 nightmare he is pedaling will be the end of him. Until this internal conflict is resolved, and the Bush influence is exorcised from the party, they will continue to lose national election, until le deluge. That will be the force that will shake the parasites lose from the political system, and while I dread the day it happens, it is hard to deny that it will given the trend lines in play.

Kim Strassel somewhat diplomatically lashes out at Senator Ted Cruz in the Wall Street Journal. Her subtitle sums up her point, which really isn’t worth delving too far into. The subtitle is, “The GOP is split between those who insist on making a point, and those who want to make some progress.”

Got that?

So Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz want to make points and the Senate Republican leadership wants to make progress. Nevermind that Cruz and company are the only ones putting points on the board for the GOP and, but for them and despite the spin, the GOP would have gone wobbly on gun control and Obamacare in the Senate.

As I noted yesterday, establishment Republicans complain about Rush Limbaugh and now Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, then run off to the Wall Street Journal editorial page to seek vengeance.

Kim Strassel has a habit of serving as the Senate GOP Leadership’s stenographer. This time it is “The GOP is split between those who insist on making a point, and those who want to make some progress,” but in 2012 she wrote this piece with the subtitle, “Are the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks risking a potential Senate Republican majority in the name of ideological purity?”

Note that in 2012, the Senate GOP backed a slew of losing candidates and the successful ones were in the Ted Cruz mould, including Ted Cruz himself. But when the conservatives get under the Senate GOP Leadership’s skin they leak bad things about conservative senators to the New York Times and then run off the Kim Strassel to get themselves legitimacy with conservatives.

What we know from here on out is that when Kim Strassel bashes conservatives in the Senate, the Republicans in the Senate who collaborated in getting us to $16 trillion in national debt must feel threatened. In other words, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul need to keep it up.

admin’s article at the top had a link to the NY Times article about Dems griping about ObamaCare. I noticed this excerpt:

“Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, said last week that the administration deserved “a failing grade” for its efforts to explain the law to the public.

“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” Mr. Baucus said then.

But after hearing White House officials on Thursday, Mr. Baucus said he was encouraged, and he praised the administration’s efforts to get healthy young people to sign up for insurance coverage.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

So Baucus sees it as a train wreck, but then he “hears from WH officials”, and suddenly he’s encouraged??? Let’s go to the transcript that the fly on the wall provides:

Max Baucus: “What the hell is this meeting about?”

Faceless White House Official: “We are on a messaging and outreach campaign. We’d like to explain how you might have reason to be encouraged, and have an open mind about Obamaca…excuse me, the Affordable Care Act”.

MB: “Well, it’s starting to look like the Unaffordable Care Act.”

FWHO: “We understand. But let’s not quibble. The president wants to make sure that we’re all singing from the same sheet music. So we’re ready to do whatever it takes to rally the troops.”

MB: “Whatever it takes??”

FWHO: “It’s not a threat. But we’d hate to have you force our hands and bring up that indelicate little matter…or that other indelicate matter.”

MB: “I see. You know, I could just say that after conferring with Administration officials, that some of my concerns have been addressed.”

FWHO: “I’m glad we could articulate our positions on ACA. I have a few more calls to make, have a nice evening.”

jb, the unemployment rate statistic has been officially outed as meaningless. Even Obama & Co. are slow to trumpet this, because the stats are so hollow. Where are the other encouraging numbers, for GDP, etc.??? Why is quantitative easing Round 3 or 4 or 5 still needed? Yeah, because Obama’s economy sux.

And although Krugman denies that Obamacare is a contributor, guess what? It is a primary contributor (although not the only one). it is a job killer. Plus, long term unemployement, and chronic underemployment, are still cresting high. That funny little 7.5% number is the best that the spin doctors at Labor can pull off.

Admin: the problem I see with the Republican Party and Obama care, is this is something that the establishment republicans actually favor, because it brings them lobbyist money from the health care industry and they originally proposed it. Obama stole them, but the establishment Republicans would like to get them back. Just another group of party before country traitors–RINOS and DINOS. Therefore, it will be up to the grass roots and their supporters in Congress to shame the establishment Republicans into letting Obamacare die the agonizing death it deserves, rather than ruin our economy and health care system.

well said…this is the damn freaking bottom line…it all has to do with who is in power and commands the money…as in, those who were for it are now against it…and will be for it again when it benefits them…

…does anyone really believe the establishment repubs…or the establishment dims.the washington insiders…..are not in cohoots with the drug and insurance companies…and throw in the advertising companies for good measure (nonstop tv drug commericials brainwashing you into what new disease you have every five seconds…pleeeassse…

this all has to do with who gets greased in washington…the insider land that screws the rest of us…who are left to…

…just keep counting how much your rates go up, your services decline and how much freedom of choice you lose in the meantime…while our leaders scam us and use our money to funnel wherever they want…their pockets?

…at least without this farce of scam not being mandatory, we are able to choose what we want and pay what we want…and decide what kind of “health care” we want…whether it be traditional or nontraditional ‘alternative’ medicine…

…this is one big racket that has nothing to do with actual health…I feel so sorry for the all young that are being coerced into this system for their entire lives…and all the young idealistic people who have dreams and aspirations to become doctors…

Unemployment rate down to 7.5%. Unfortunately, he is going to take credit for this.
—————————————-
It is a big nothingburger, because nobody is listening. The more unemployed fall off the roles the more the number goes down. If he thinks that after 5 years in office, the phony unemployment rate is there, then he is dumber than owlshit, and nobody with any sense is listening. If he were not in office, the unemployment rate would be 5%. That is what people need to get through their heads. That is not a marker worth paying attention to, believe me.

Barry should have waited until Sunday to deliver this speech, Cinco de Mayo.

—

Obama Blames U.S. For Gun Violence In Mexico

“Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.”

“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama added.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 2, 2013 – A group of small business owners (and individuals) in six states today are suing the federal government over an IRS regulation imposed under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which will force them to pay exorbitant fines, cut back employees’ hours, or severely burden their businesses. Complaint can be viewed here.

The Affordable Care Act authorizes health insurance subsidies to qualifying individuals in states that created their own healthcare exchanges. Those subsidies trigger the employer mandate (a $2,000/employee penalty) and expose more people to the individual mandate. But last spring, without authorization from Congress, the IRS vastly expanded those subsidies to cover states that refused to set up such exchanges. Under the Act, businesses in these nonparticipating states should be free of the employer mandate, and the scope of the individual mandate should be reduced as well. But because of the IRS rule, both mandates will be greatly enlarged in scope, depriving states of the power to protect their residents.

Michael Carvin, partner at Jones Day, who co-argued the Supreme Court Obamacare cases in March, 2012 and who represents the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, stated: “The IRS rule we are challenging is at war with the Act’s plain language and completely rewrites the deal that Congress made with the states on running these insurance exchanges.” [snip]

Thirty-three states have exercised their congressionally-created option to not create an exchange in order to spare their businesses from the employer mandate. The IRS rule, however, deprives them of this choice.

“The IRS cannot rewrite the law that Congress passed,” said Tom Miller, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “Its regulation expressly flouts the statutory text of the ACA, the intent of Congress, and the reasoned choices of 33 states.”

“The Obama administration plans to tax, borrow, and spend more than half a trillion dollars in clear violation of Obamacare, yet still says Obamacare is ‘the law of the land,’ said Michael Cannon, director of health policy at the Cato Institute. “The courts should stop the administration before it starts imposing these illegal taxes on millions of individuals and employers in January.”

This legal complaint, available here in pdf, seeks to strike the illegal IRS rule, arguing that the agency has no power to rewrite an essential part of the law. The suit is being filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

Payrolls rose by 138,000 jobs in March, 50,000 more than previously reported, and job growth for February was revised up by 64,000 to 332,000, the largest increase since May 2010.

But the gains last month were far below the 206,000 jobs per month average of the first quarter, the latest evidence the economy is cooling, even if not as quickly as earlier feared.

Indeed, the data provided a number of signs of a loss of momentum.

Construction employment fell for the first time since May and manufacturing payrolls were flat. The length of the average workweek pulled off a nine-month high and a gauge of the overall work effort fell.

Economists pin the slowdown largely on higher taxes that took hold at the start of the year and $85 billion in federal government spending cuts, known as the sequester, that went into effect at the beginning of March. Economies overseas have also weakened, cutting into U.S. export growth.

While the U.S. economy grew at a 2.5 percent annual pace in the first quarter, data on construction spending, retail sales and trade suggested it ended the period with less speed.

Further, factory data for April imply the economy braked further at the start of the second quarter, a thesis supported by a report on Friday that showed the pace of growth in the services sector in April was the slowest in nine months.

“We are probably going into a second-quarter soft patch, but it’s not something that’s going to derail the recovery,” said Julia Coronado, chief North American economist at BNP Paribas in New York.

“I pray that Hillary Clinton decides to run for president of the United States,” Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Minority leader, said during a public appearance in Little Rock, Ark., according to The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

– The brothers reportedly had planned to set off the explosives on July 4, but changed their plans when the bombs were finished early.

[snip]

– Three of Dzhokhar’s friends were charged Wednesday with hindering the investigation, including dumping a laptop and a backpack filled with hollowed-out fireworks that were found in his college dorm room.

[snip]

The FBI claims this prompted Dias Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakova, both 19-year-old natives of Kazakhstan and friends of Tsarnaev at UMass-Dartmouth, to go to Tsarnaev’s dorm and take the laptop, backpack and some Vaseline that may have been used in making the deadly pressure cooker bombs. Police believe the bombs were packed with shrapnel and gunpowder removed from fireworks.

One possibility on why Obama is stonewalling on Benghazi, from a commenter on another blog who claims to have special ops background:

“Do you know WHY they don’t want to take the Benghazi attackers into custody? Because even if the attackers are read their Miranda rights, their attorneys will advise them to cooperate in order to gain legal negotiation advantage. The actual premeditation and planning timeline wil become known, as well as the attack organization and coordination links. If they actually go to trial, much of this will become public knowledge. At that point, just how ridiculous the initial “video” cover story and the government’s lack of prepartion and response to the attack will become patently clear. And this is something that the administration wants to avoid at all costs.”

The mystery here will not be solved until we know who gave the order not to extract our people when they were facing certain death. I suspect that Obama was in the fetal position and Jarret gave the order. If it was not that asshole, then it was one of the two big strapping Irishmen as Brian Williams calls them who make a market pedaling top secret information to the New York Times newspaper, whom Pat Caddell has called out for doing it on a prior occasion. This is from another blogger who claims to have special ops experience and insight.

“What clinched it for me was when the special operator said in his interview that if there is uncertainty on the ground (i.e., you don’t know enough about what is going on), you send operators in who are trained to extract/exfil. I know this to be a fact from personal experience. Somebody said “no” to an extraction of the boys in Benghazi. Why? We deserve to know who that somebody was. Because there is one other thing that I know from personal experience. When you are totally outnumbered and surrounded in bad guy country, you are depending on the person on the other end of that radio to pull you out if the shit really hits the fan. I can only imagine what it must’ve been like that night when the person on the other end of Benghazi’s radio said, “Sorry, you’re on your own. We’ll call your next of kin and promise them that we’ll get the guys that are about to kill you.”

Note: this is a big deal to the special ops community, for obvious reasons. Moreover, it will resonate with conservatives. But I doubt it will register with the sheeple or corrupt mainstream media. Therefore, I am not optimistic that it will do much good.

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” The Roman poet Juvenal 1st century A.D.

Unbelievable!! This is like hiring an arsonist for the fire department!

Newsmax Exclusive: US Hired al-Qaida-Linked Group to Defend Benghazi Mission

The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi had clear al-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the al-Qaida flag on a Facebook page for some months before the deadly attack.

That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under attack.

“…Speaking to a captive audience of young minds made up of mostly high school and college students—his trademark age group home and abroad….Obama must have forgotten that young Mexican students would have read about Fast & Furious, which saw American guns transferred into the hands of the drug cartels with the full knowledge—and backing—of the Obama administration….” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54962

Their identities have been a well-guarded secret, known only to their high-powered lawyers and a handful of House lawmakers and staff. But now Fox News has learned the names of the self-described Benghazi “whistleblowers” who are set to testify before a widely anticipated congressional hearing on Wednesday.

Appearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be three career State Department officials: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks and, upon the killing of Ambassador Stevens in those attacks, the highest-ranking American diplomat in the country; Mark I. Thompson, a former U.S. Marine and presently the Deputy Coordinator for Operations in the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a Diplomatic Security officer who was formerly the regional security officer (RSO) in Libya, the top security officer in the country, in the months leading up to the Benghazi attacks.

Nordstrom previously testified before the oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), in October 2012. At that time, Nordstrom made headlines by detailing for lawmakers the series of requests that he, Ambassador Stevens, and others made for enhanced security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, most of which were rejected by superiors at Foggy Bottom. “For me,” Nordstrom testified he remarked, angry over inadequate staffing at a time when the threat environment in Benghazi was deteriorating, “the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building.”

The other two witnesses have not been heard from publicly before.

Hicks is a veteran Foreign Service officer whose overseas postings have also included Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. According to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), another member of the committee, Hicks was in Tripoli at 9:40 p.m. local time on September 11 when he received one of Stevens’s earliest phone calls amid the crisis. “We’re under attack! We’re under attack!” the ambassador reportedly shouted into his cell phone at Hicks. According to Chaffetz, who subsequently debriefed Hicks, the deputy “immediately called into Washington to trigger all the mechanisms” for an inter-agency response. “The real-life trauma that [Hicks] went through,” Chaffetz recalled to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, “I mean, I really felt it in his voice. It was hard to listen to. He’s gone through a lot, but he did a great job.”

According to the State Department website, Thompson “advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.” Five years before the Benghazi attacks, he lectured at a symposium hosted by the University of Central Florida and entitled “The Global Terrorism Challenge: Answers to Key Questions.” [snip]

The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.

“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi — that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA….It’s frightening….They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”

“There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them,” diGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing’s respective clients. “The people that we are representing are career civil servants…people who have served the country overseas…in dangerous positions all over the world, have risked their lives and only want to tell the truth.”

Forgive me, but when I read about what is happening now in Syria, I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War, when Hitler and Stalin fought against each other through surrogates. In this case, however, the behind the scene combatants are Iran and the dysfunctional western alliance, led from behind by jackass Obama. The problem with fighting a war through surrogates is sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. This is akin to the Brezniski doctrine which aided the forerunner of al Quaeda–and don’t buy the idea that this was just Joe Wilson’s war, the man behind it was the Polish Prince Zeib, and at the end of the day what it brought us was 9/11. Likewise here, when you give al Quaeda powerful conventional weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons are turned back on you. It is the law of nature, the law of politics and the law of reality, and the creme of diplomatic tradition not to arm your enemies to achieve short term gain, because the long term consequences can, and often are catastrophic. This is a big part of the Benghazi cover-up as well, but in the final analysis who is kidding whom? Oh, yes, I keep forgetting the American sheeple and the corrupt big media. For them, we must fall as a nation. That is p.c./
————————————————-

Iran has significantly stepped up military support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in recent months, solidifying its position alongside Russia as the government’s lifeline in an increasingly sectarian civil war, Western diplomats said.

Iranian weapons continue to pour into Syria from Iraq but also increasingly along other routes, including via Turkey and Lebanon, in violation of a U.N. arms embargo on Iran, Western officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Iraqi and Turkish officials denied the allegations.

Iran’s acceleration of support for Assad suggests the Syrian war is entering a new phase in which Iran may be trying to end the battlefield stalemate by redoubling its commitment to Assad and offering Syria’s increasingly isolated government a crucial lifeline, the envoys said.

It also highlights the growing sectarian nature of the conflict, diplomats say, with Iranian arms flowing to the Shi’ite militant group Hezbollah. That group is increasingly active on the ground in Syria in support of Assad’s forces, envoys say.

The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors
————————
If that can be proven, then shit for brains Brian Williams will have to stick his head down the c-mode and flush it three times. I hope this proves out. As for me, I have no doubt, and believe to a moral certainty that eye witnesses were threatened. For them it is now Hobson’s choice: whether to live the lie every day for the rest of their lives, or to come forward and tell the truth, at the risk of their careers. The truth is the only thing that will set them free.

Before this thing is through, I predict that Admiral Mullen’s reputation will be in tatters. To shrink from getting to the truth, and leaving our dead behind so to speak, he has committed the ultimate offense of anyone who wears, or once war the union of a senior grade officer of the armed forces. If I were him, I would be waiting at the head, waiting for Brian Williams to relieve himself, and then taking my turn. In all seriousness however, this is an incredible oversight by him, and it will haunt him. Like so many others, he took the political way out. Frankly, I had thought better of him. Once again, I was wrong.

One of the things I loved about music when I was younger is that it brought so many people together, spoke for so many of the people that felt they were lost in the sea of American humanity. The music of today’s youth and their leader Baracko, rip everyone to shreds.

Larry’s latest. I deleted the reference to Hillary because I am quite sure that she was following Obama’s orders, and do not think this will have any impact on 2016. But it is remotely possible that they have big bad barack, the left wing spindly armed pannywaist who flatters himself by calling himself strapping socialist long after Arnold called him what he is–girliemon. Well, enough of that. Will Obama take a hit. Not if big media can help it. But they need to look at their hole card here–they think they have lost an audience now–just you wait Henry Higgins until the truth comes out. These are no back benchers coming forward. Right now, Obama is looking high and low for a scapegoat, a sacrificial lamb. Fine, just as long as it is not Hillary. I think if she could take her testimony back about what difference does it make, I think she might. But nobody is perfect, least of all me. I knew what Obama was, but Admiral Mullen, well he surprised me. Wouldn’t you love to see Poopsie try to cross examine these witnesses. She won’t, for the same reason Harry Reid never appears on talk shows. No ability to fend for themselves in a live debate. Just bureaucrats, strike that, corrupt bureaucrats.
—————————–
The big news today is the announcement of the names of the three State Department whistleblowers who are set to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform next Wednesday:

Mr. Mark Thompson
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism
US Department of State

Mr. Gregory Hicks
Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya
US Department of State

Mr. Eric Nordstrom
Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya
US Department of State

This is big. The testimony of Gregory Hicks is especially noteworthy because he was the number two guy in the Embassy in Tripoli (aka Deputy Chief of Mission aka DCM) and was responsible for managing the Embassy. In other words, if the Regional Security Officer requested more security resources and was denied, it would fall on the DCM to escalate the matter and deal directly with Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy (snip). It is highly unusual that a person of Mr. Hicks experience and stature would come forward. He does not do this lightly and is not a partisan political figure. He is a career Foreign Service Officer and clearly is motivated by conscience. No one who was at that Embassy last September knows more about the security threats and U.S. operations in the country than Mr. Hicks. The fact that he has had to seek whistleblower status tells me that some fool or group of fools at State mistakenly decided to question this man’s integrity. They will rue the day.

The same applies to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Nordstrom. I do not know Mr. Nordstrom, but I do know Mark Thompson. Mark is the kind of person that you as a taxpayer want as an employee of the U.S. Government. He is apolitical and is the most experienced person in the Federal Government dealing with international terrorism matters. He led the FEST (aka Foreign Emergency Support Team) to Kenya in the aftermath of the August 1998 Al Qaeda attacks in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. He also led the FEST to Yemen for crisis response operations following the bombing in October 2000 of the USS Cole. His knowledge, experience and reputation are above challenge. His professional roots are in the US Marine Corps and he has lived his life in accordance with everything that is virtuous and honorable about Marine Officers. If you had to send your son or daughter into combat and could select their commanding officer, you would choose Mark Thompson.

These are three formidable professionals and the Democrats would be well advised to shut up and listen. Any attempt to impugn their integrity or challenge their motives will blow up on the partisan accusers. These men are professionals who have been thwarted by persons and procedures in being able to do their job, which is to help protect and defend the United States

I would hope that the identification of these witnesses, who are leaders within their respective departments, would cause others to come forward. None of them are from the CIA however–and they are the ones we also need to hear from.

During the panel discussion, Maher brought up a joke Obama told at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

“He said, ‘The media landscape is changing so rapidly you can’t keep up with it. I remember when BuzzFeed was just something I did in college around 2 AM,’” Maher relayed. “And that pissed me off because, you know, there are actually people in jail. There are something like 750,000 people who get arrested for pot every year.”

“This president wouldn’t be president if they had caught him, if that was on his record,” Maher added. “He’d still be a community organizer.”

Indeed. But Obama’s drug use – which included cocaine – didn’t bother his devotees in the media.

Bad news for the once-legendary Washington Post is good news for America…

Thanks to other businesses, including a number of television stations, The Washington Post Co. was able to make a slim profit in the first quarter of 2013, but earnings still fell 85% over last year. What dragged the company down as a whole was The Washington Post newspaper.

Out of desperation, the Post is planning to install an online paywall later in the year. Currently, the Post has only 42,313 online subscribers and its overall circulation places it 7th in the nation.

In its quarterly report, the company noted that a large portion of its losses came from $25.3 million in one-time payouts for early retirement, severance, and restructuring.

Another sign of the Post’s ongoing financial woes is its decision to move from its famous headquarters located just four blocks from the White House. This has been the Post’s home since 1950. The building became iconic during the Watergate scandal with the help of the 1976 film “All the President’s Men.”

So it looks as though, as far as objective, quality journalism goes, combined with its actual physical location, the Post is officially a shell of what it once was.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

advertisement
Send A Tip
Sign up for our newsletter

advertisement
Breitbart Video Picks

advertisement

advertisement

Three State Dept. Whistleblowers to Testify on Benghazi
Clarence Thomas: Obama Is What Elites ‘Expect from Black Person’
Lowry: Obama Won’t Mention ‘Abortion’
Easy Weight Loss: Man, 55, Loses Inches of Belly Fat
Do You Support Rubio’s Plan? Vote in Poll
U.S. Hired Al-Qaida-Linked Group in Benghazi
Tebow Miami Rumors Denied by Miami Sources
Emergency Radio Essential to Emergency Preparedness

I wouldn’t say I was embarrassed, but I do have one major disagreement with Hillary. When it comes to the murders of 4 Americans – including our Ambassador – I do think it makes a difference who was responsible.

I hope this hearing is televised.

Whistleblower Lawyer: ARB’s Gen Pickering ‘Became Physically Ill’ At The Thought of Dealing With Hillary
It looks like the ARB’s findings are indeed not holding up to scrutiny. The report is being savaged by the attorneys who are representing material witnesses who they say were ignored by the ARB.

A Pox On Politicians – a Burt Prelutsky Bonus
Posted: May 5, 2013
“…I believe this country is in deep doo-doo. But I believe that Obama is the result of the national malaise, and not entirely the cause, as some would insist…I can’t bring myself to say that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have made any difference, although probably not as much as he or I would like…But I’m only guessing because 51% of the voters let us know that four years of record unemployment, a nuclear Iran, a berserk North Korea, soaring inflation and diminished American influence around the world, don’t really matter when it comes to choosing between an honorable man who has succeeded in every aspect of his life and one who has surrounded himself with lowlifes and succeeded at nothing except winning a few elections. But he has a winning smile, which in a sane universe would land him a toothpaste commercial, not the presidency….”http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/a-pox-on-politicians-a-burt-prelutsky-bonus/

SICKENING: Terrorist Mob in Libya Desecrates, Destroys World War II British Military Cemetary
Not only are Ambassador Stevens’ assassins still running free, the larger Islamist terror mob in Libya is methodically returning the country to its barbaric roots.

AFP – An Afghan soldier shot dead two soldiers serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force on Saturday, officials said, in the latest “insider attack” to target the coalition.

“Two International Security Assistance Force service members were killed when an Afghan National Army soldier turned his weapon against ISAF service members in western Afghanistan today,” ISAF said in a statement.

In line with coalition policy, it did not disclose the nationalities of those who died.

Also on Saturday, a roadside bomb killed five US troops in southern Afghanistan.

“Five American soldiers were killed at about noon when their armoured vehicle hit a powerful roadside mine in Maiwand district,” General Abdul Razeq, Kandahar province’s police chief, told AFP.

The troops died in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack, ISAF confirmed in a separate statement.

Leanora, you posted a link which included this video. I thought the video should be presented on its own merits. This confirms my hunch from several says ago about Admiral Mullen. And it also confirms something Obama told Hillary at the 2008 convention which shocked her at the time, which evidently she has since come to believe, but now at last, maybe, we are seeing the bitter fruits of that poisonous tree:

Hillary: Barack you cannot do it that way, they will never believe it.

Barack: “I CAN MAKE THEM BELIEVE ANYTHING I WANT THEM TO BELIEVE.”

Big Media will not be able to suppress this, so they will under report and they will ascribe partisan motives to Victoria and Joe. Both of the are Republicans, but the fact is they have truth on their side and that should trump everything else. Also, I suspect that Obama operatives in Congress will attempt to trash the proceedings and the witnesses. But given the stature of those witnesses, good luck with that one. I hope this thing is as big as Watergate. Big Media and the Sheeple will have no problem with this because they have been covering up for Obama all along. But this could be a game changer. It is hard for me to believe at this point that it will be a bust. Not with Darryl Issa running the process.

Obviously, even the faintest criticism of Obama in this entire affair will be dismissed as racism, and the repugnant RINOS will run for cover, while telling the world all we want is to be liked, and to keep our lobbyists happy.

Well . . . I guess you could say that candidate Obama assured us that he wanted transparency in government, and now perhaps he is going to get more of it than he ever bargained for. Watch the American sheeple rally to his defense. Why are they being so mean to him? As Van Holen has said, it must be because he is black. And then the same Van Holen turns around and trashes black conservatives. Van Hollen is racist to the core.

Among its many other faults Mullen and Pickering in their Accountability Review Board cover-up set the responsibility for the Benghazi attack at the Assistant Secretary level and below. No wonder Obama loves that report. No wonder Carney wants that report to be conclusive of the issue. How a Navy man like Mullen could lend his name to this, when marines who were in his chain of command when he was an admiral were killed is to say the least remarkable. Honestly, I do not understand what happened to him. That report was bare as a goat’s ass, long as a whore’s dream, and was anything but independent. Surely Mullen knew the special forces cadre in the population would not let it end there. Surely he knew what the impact would be on morale. What is wrong with the man?

The new brand of dixiecrat is rising in the south. How nice.
———————————–
Elizabeth Colbert Busch must explicitly repudiate Dick Harpootlian’s bigotry.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | May 4th, 2013 at 11:00 PM | 3

RESIZE: AAA

Background: “South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian, a trial lawyer, longtime Democratic leader, and legendary figure in local politics, reportedly told a South Carolina Democratic Party dinner [Friday night*] that the Democratic challenger would send “Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from.”” Harpootlian, of course, has a history of these kinds of remarks:

2012: “The Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party is refusing to apologize after he compared his state’s Republican Gov. Nikki Haley to Adolf Hitler’s mistress Eva Braun.”
2011: “The South Carolina Democratic Party tried Thursday to make Haley out as a liar for checking “white” as her race on her 2001 Lexington County voter registration application.” (Added to highlight the absurdity of Harpootlian pretending not to know where the Governor is from.)
2011: “Before the hopefuls arrived Wednesday in North Charleston to meet with local Democrats, the race took a twist after Harpootlian earlier apologized for using the word “retard” on a recent webcast… Harpootlian said Wednesday he’s misused the word “retard” before, specifically when he referred to Republican Gov. David Beasley and former Rep. Bob Inglis as “tard and retard.””
2002: (From Harpootlian’s previous tenure as SC chair): “[Lindsey] Graham became the senior senator from his state — but not without controversy. The 50-something confirmed bachelor was finally forced to face down long-standing suspicions about his sexual orientation in 2002, when South Carolina Democratic party leader Dick Harpootlian referred to Graham as being too “light in the loafers” to fill Thurmond’s shoes.”

…and so on, and so on, and so on.

Now, I understand that politics in South Carolina is not for the timid. And it should be noted that the garbage coming from Dick Harpootlian’s mouth on a regular basis doesn’t seem to translate to electoral wins for the South Carolina Democratic party. But neither detail particularly helps Elizabeth Colbert Busch, here. This is unacceptable behavior from her party’s leadership; and if Ms. Colbert Busch thinks that it is somehow moral to allow her side’s racist attack dogs to do their thing without hindrance then I’m afraid that she’s learned all the wrong lessons from South Carolinian politics.

But if Elizabeth Colbert Busch needs a pragmatic reason to do the right thing, here you go: South Carolina’s first Congressional district voted for a Mormon Presidential candidate 58-40 in 2012. The district (as near as I can judge; the district borders have changed since) went for Sikh-descent Nikki Haley in 2010. It elected African-American Tim Scott (now Senator) Representative twice, with over sixty percent of the vote. In short, this district is not friendly territory for bigots.

Lest we forget, Honest Jim Clyburn, an avowed racist, hails from the Palmetto state too. Half of his relatives have government grants (formerly earmarks), and I expect the other half are on government assistance, like Jim. Jim is the one who aided and abetted the take down of Bill in the South Carolina primary, which inspired the classic article about Obama entitle Race Man by Professor Sean Wilentz: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/race-man# They rewarded the uber corrupt Clyburn with the position of House Whip when Lube Rack was Speaker.

May 5th, 2013 – 8:03 am
There’s only one way to cut the Gordian Knot of regional conflict in the Middle East, and that is to de-fang Iran–destroy its capacity to make nuclear weapons and destroy the bases of the Revolutionary Guard.

Israel’s reported strike on a stockpile of Iranian missiles near Damascus overnight highlights the extent of Iran’s military presence in Syria. We do not (and will not) know the details, but the series of fireballs that “turned day into night” around the Syrian capital, as one observer told news media, make clear that an enormous amount of ordnance was in place. It was no secret that the Assad regime now depends on Iran and its cat’s paw Hezbollah, to be sure: Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah declared April 30 that Syria’s civil war had become a regional conflict, warning, ”Syria has real friends in the region and the world that will not let Syria fall in the hands of America, Israel or Takfiri (extreme jihadi) groups,” Nasrallah said in a broadcast on Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV channel. “How will this happen? Details will come later. I say this based on information … rather than wishful thinking.”

Israel’s head of military intelligence, Gen. Aviv Kochavi, warned in March that Iran and Hezbollah already had built an army of 50,000 in Syria and planned to double its size. Syria had an estimated 220,000 regular soldiers in 2010, but probably can field less than half that number today; at a prospective strength of 100,000, the Iranian-Hezbollah force would become the dominant military power in Syria, in effect an army of occupation.

The events of the past eighteen hours make clear that Iran intends to use Syria as a base for missile attacks on Israel. The Iranian Fateh-110 missiles can deliver a 1,500 lb. warhead accurately at a distance of 300 km (Tel Aviv is 214 km from Damascus). Iranian Revolutionary Guards launching missiles at Israeli cities from Syria represents a much greater threat to Israel than Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is vulnerable to Israeli retaliation; the Iranians don’t care how much Israel might retaliate against their Syrian hosts. Israel had to degrade Iran’s missile capability in Syria. By the end of July 2006, about half of Lebanon’s 1.2 million Shia had fled their homes in the face of Israel’s incursion into the south of the country. Most went to Syria. Things are different now: Syrians are fleeing into Lebanon. A repeat of Israel’s 2006 attack would have catastrophic impact on Hezbollah’s Shia base, which has nowhere to run. And the Israelis, if they are forced back into Lebanon, will not deal with Hezbollah as gingerly as did the Olmert government in 2006.

Iran’s intervention in Syria has turned the Syrian civil war into a proxy conflict between the region’s Shia and Sunni. Iran’s intent is to transform Syria from an ally into a protectorate. Syria’s Sunni majority resented but tolerated an Alawite police state, but will fight to the death against prospective occupation by a foreign Shi’ite power. Saudi Arabia and Turkey will continue to pour resources and fighters into Syria to prevent an Iranian takeover. The Sunnis fear a regional Iranian reign of terror under a nuclear umbrella and will fight to the death to prevent it. The Shia-Sunni conflict in Syria may spill over into Iraq, where remnants of Saddam Hussein’s military leadership have armed and recruited a Sunni fighting force, and Lebanon, where a jihadist “Sunni Awakening” challenges Hezbollah.

Sunni-Shia conflict is not necessarily averse to American interests; as Daniel Pipes, the dean of conservative Middle East analysts, wrote April 11, “Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and it (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.” (I made a similar argument last year).

Everything changes, though, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Instead of a containable war of attrition, we will have an Iranian reign of terror under a nuclear umbrella. If Washington and other Western capitals are intimidated by Iranian terror capabilities (including the Iranian threat to disrupt Western oil supplies) without nuclear weapons, what can we expect from the feckless diplomats of the West if Iran has the option of nuclear terrorism?

Off-the-Cuff Obama Line Put U.S. in Bind on Syria
WASHINGTON — Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options. The origins of this dilemma can be traced in large part to a weekend last August, when alarming intelligence reports suggested the besieged Syrian government might be preparing to use chemical weapons. After months of keeping a distance from the conflict, Mr. Obama felt he had to become more directly engaged.
In a frenetic series of meetings, the White House devised a 48-hour plan to deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by using intermediaries like Russia and Iran to send a message that one official summarized as, “Are you crazy?” But when Mr. Obama emerged to issue the public version of the warning, he went further than many aides realized he would.
Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.
“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”
As a result, the president seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago. American officials have even discussed with European allies the prospect of airstrikes to take out Syrian air defenses, airplanes and missile delivery systems, if government use of chemical weapons is confirmed. An Israeli airstrike in Syria on Thursday, apparently targeting advanced missiles bound for the Shiite Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, highlighted the volatile situation. With Syrians already dying by the thousands from conventional weapons, Mr. Obama now confronts the most urgent foreign policy issue of his second term, one in which he must weigh humanitarian impulses against the risk to American lives. After about two years of ineffectual diplomacy, whether or how he chooses to follow through on his warning about chemical weapons could shape his remaining time in office.
The evolution of the “red line” and the nine months that followed underscore the improvisational nature of Mr. Obama’s approach to one of the most vexing crises in the world, all the more striking for a president who relishes precision. Palpably reluctant to become entangled in another war in the Middle East, and well aware that most Americans oppose military action, the president has deliberately not explained what his “red line” actually is or how it would change his calculus.
“I’m not convinced it was thought through,” said Barry Pavel, a former defense policy adviser to Mr. Obama who is now at the Atlantic Council. “I’m worried about the broader damage to U.S. credibility if we make a statement and then come back with lawyerly language to get around it.”
While Mr. Pavel favors a more active response to the killings in Syria, others worry that Mr. Obama may have trapped himself into going too far. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, told Bloomberg Television that military involvement in Syria would risk “a large-scale disaster for the United States…..”
2 more pages of this at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world/middleeast/obamas-vow-on-chemical-weapons-puts-him-in-tough-spot.html?_r=0

Pipes is reviled as a neocon, but his logic is sound. This quote from The Conduct of War sums up the situation nicely:

“If two rival giants are offering an alternative threat to the existing order, and if you are unwilling to let the rascals fight it out for themselves, choose carefully the time you intervene in their struggle and intervene only to save whichever of the true is most likely to be destroyed. For as long as there are two of these giants the world can breathe. But if you devote a war of righteousness to destroying one of them, then you are using your own blood and treasure to build up the other into a greater monster than ever and you will infallibly have to face it at the next stage of the story.”

In other words, the policy endorsed by Obama and his predecessor and the military industrial complex is the policy of ridding the world of terrorism by supporting terrorists. The logical flaw is obvious: we are using the devil to cast out the devil. The bottom line: it will blow back in our faces. But like every other dark cloud, there is a silver lining. We went to dinner last night at an excellent and reasonably priced restaurant. The owners were from abroad. The man was Iraqi, and the woman was from Lebanon. But for the serial failures of foreign policy by Obama and his predecessor, they would probably not be here. But that is like the old story of how the early Chinese burned down their houses with steak in them, because they liked the taste of steak. I am sure Carney could explain the wisdom of that, but I for one cannot.

There was a white wash article about this guy Ben Rhoades a few weeks ago in the New York Times. His brother is a Hollywood big shot. Not only was he a major player in the cover-up, but to the point of the NYT article he was a crucial player in the Cairo speech and Arab Spring which has set the middle east on fire. Oh, he had help all right, including the dogmatic ugly Samantha Power, and has since resigned. But the gist of the NYT article was to feel sorry for this man, to which I say only if you are also predisposed to feel sorry for Martin Boreman. His naivetee and is influence has cause the death of tens of thosands of people, because under his failed fiction writer delusion of promoting democracy in a part of the world that has never had it, he has unleashed a major holy war.
————————————–

The man behind the Benghazi cover-up?
Ed Lasky

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has a must read column regarding the Benghazi cover-up by White House officials.

CIA career officials clearly and repeatedly identified Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-linked Islamic terrorists as the culprits behind the murder of four Americans.

Of course, this would cause embarrassment for the Obama team, especially in the few weeks before the election. They had been boasting for years that Al Qaeda had been decimated, the “tide of war” was receding; they had been on a mission to whitewash the prospect of Islamic terrorism as a threat to America (see Lauri Regan’s superb column (“Can a President who has promised to stand with Muslims protect America? ). Obama’s Cairo speech before an audience that included Muslim Brotherhood officials that he compelled Egypt to include, was a paean to Islam. It was also, to a great extent, a work of fiction that included grandiose and subsequently disproven claims about the positive contributions Islam has made to America and the world.

That speech was written by Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now National Security Council team member, Ben Rhodes.

That is the man who Hayes “outs” as a key person behind the Benghazi cover-up.

He reportedly altered the CIA talking points to delete references to Islamic terrorists, “attacks” (they became “demonstrations”) and other negative references to Islamism. Also, someone at the White House level apparently dreamt up the idea of blaming an inconsequential video for triggering a spontaneous protest, that in the frenzy of events, led to the murder of Americans. These CIA talking points were eviscerated to whitewash the role of Islamic terrorism.

There was a White House whitewash that should not be dismissed over events that occurred a ‘long time ago;” contrary to Hillary Clinton saying that responsibility for the deaths of Americans serving their nation does “matter.” And despite Secretary of State’s John Kerry’s dismissiveness towards the Benghazi murders – “we got a lot more important things to move on to” – justice for the America’s dead demands we find who is responsible.

Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.

I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House. It is shameful that this “kid” (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government.

In “Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?” I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing.

He earned a master’s degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called ‘The Oasis of Love” about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance.

Carol Lee of Politico wrote in May, 2009, that

Not long ago, Rhodes was one of the obscure guys who wrote Obama’s campaign speeches in Starbucks and played video games into the early morning hours. Now he attends national security meetings and takes writer’s refuge in a secret office on the third floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Wow – what a meteoric rise! What qualifies him to have been given such power to lie to the American people? Why does he have so much influence with Barack Obama ?

Maybe it is just his avid willingness to do the bidding of his bosses, regardless of truth.

Why do I make this claim? Well, for one reason, Hayes notes he did it regarding Benghazi. But there is a pattern here that he puts his education as a fiction writer to work for political purposes.

Years ago, Democratic Senator and Obama-mentor Lee Hamilton plucked him from obscurity to write what became the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. That report was rightly criticized for many reasons, among them was the stacking of its “expert list’ with various pro-Arab apologist. Incidentally, the commission ignored its mandate to focus on Iraq and instead devoted a lot of words to attack Israel. Some of the experts who were interviewed were appalled by the final written report because they felt it did not reflect facts, their testimony, or reality.

Who wrote this whitewash? Who was responsible for hitting the delete button of some of the expert testimony? Who tried to divert responsibility for terrorism away from where it belongs?

None other than Ben Rhodes – a man who has finally found a use for his fiction-writing education (since he failed as a novelist); to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration.

One hopes the House calls Rhodes as a witness in this week’s hearings regarding the Benghazi massacre and the miscarriage of justice in Washington. Will his fiction-writing on behalf of Obama come to light?

He bears responsibility for a great deal of what has gone wrong in American foreign and national security policy for the past few years.

I chanced upon a rerun of this event. Big Dawg at his best and I wished that current POTUS could listen in. The video is 2 1/2 hours. I shut it down during Q & A when he said he thought immigration would pass. Before that, tho, a lot of classic Clinton. I so enjoyed hearing him tell with many of his own life encounters … how “listening” is the key to being able to speak and serve well. Cautioning over and over not to disrespect, refuse to hear, or denigrate anyone. All politely.

Perhaps no one else will see the humor, but right after this ends at 5:30, CSPAN will be broadcasting something called “Obama’s Second Term.”

I see where David Rhoades is under 40 too. Children. A small time Hollwood director told me that many of the directors are in their 20s. And unlike the past, where 20 year old actors aspired to look mature, now they aspire to look like they are 12. Also, the audience for their product tends to be more European, according to him. But that is nothing new. Garbo’s claim to fame coming out of the silent movie era was based on a large European audience who found her mysterious and faintly erotic. Then, after the war, the Europeans were in a state of financial collapse and so was her career, although to make nice they blamed it on a bad movie she never should have said yes to.

National loyalty day. That sounds like something Fidel would have dreamed up. Tell me Obama to what and to whom should we be loyalty. It is rather clear at this point that you and your vision are fundamentally at odds with the American experience, so again the question to whom and to what should we be loyal?

I guess the anarchists in Seattle did heed his dog whistle call for loyalty the only way they knew how: they rioted, and 7 policemen were injured. Those vandals were obviously loyal to Obama, but not to the country.

Clinton-hater Bill Richardson is already hard at work campaigning for BIDEN for 2016. I got 5 bucks that says Hillary is being set up again. That is why all the damning praise from Pelosi. Betting on a Biden/Warren ticket in 2016 if Hillary decides not to run.

The Biggest ENEMY to America occupies the Oval Office. This goddamned pandering son-of-a-bitch is now the root cause of everything wrong in America. He is still apologizing to the whole world – for all of the things that he is against in this nation. And a whole lot of low-life, pandering, gimme-gimme basTURDS voted for this guy? HEY – Obama – when are you going to arrest Holder and the gang for sending those weapons into Mexico? (Ed.)

This hearing on Wednesday will be interesting. Do not be surprised if the democrats scream and stage a walk-out, but if they do it will be stupid. In hindsight, they would have been smarter to have consented to the appointment of an Independent Counsel, who would have dragged it out indefinitely, but that opportunity was missed. I would expect good old Elijah Cummings to throw a hissy fit, all for effect, and they will try to savage the witnesses. A smarter move would be for them to challenge the conclusions reached by the witnesses, and avoid the frontal attacks, and then let their accomplices in the New York Times and WashPo promote an alternative explanation. This is why I had hoped, for Hillary’s sake, that she had handled her own appearance before Congress differently. Nevertheless, I expect that the dims will have some rabbit to pull out of the hat. But the one I really wonder about is Issa, who is perhaps the only government official now in office that I respect. Why would he leak this testimony, and give the dims an opportunity to prepare to fight it? There is the argument that the allegation is powerful, and it takes time for it to settle in. And that is the current theory of opening statements in general, the ability to go first and make the allegation predisposes the jury to see the case through that prism, and woe betide the party who goes second and must answer. But again, there is the risk. To me, the only way it makes sense is if Issa, Trey et. al. have additional evidence to corroborate that testimony which they have not yet disclosed, and will not disclose until the fiery dims walk into the trap. Ideally, this would be documentary evidence, from the scads of documentary evidence which were floating around in the wind and the fires of Benghazi for days after the attack.

This is all just a guess on my part, but I do think Issa knows what he is doing. And if that is right, then he may have Obama and big media with their pants down.

The reason they opposed the appointment of an Independent Counsel is they believed they could bury the entire episode prior to the election, and it would die a natural death after Obama won, with the able assistance of an uber corrupt big media.

In doing so however, they failed to realize the power of FOX news, and the even more important fact that there are some tragedies which do not go quietly into the night at the beck and call of big media, because those issues strike a raw nerve with important groups in the community—like the military, who see this for what is was and is: a craven administration and party, who leave our military to die undefended on the battlefield while they seek political cover. This by the way, is the secret belief that people in uniform have about politicians in general.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred

Democrats’ Agenda for Benghazi Hearing: Protect Hillary at All Costs
———————
A hunker down approach here, if that is what they do, will not work, for the reasons discussed. Jumping on a grenade which is about to explode is not a viable strategy, especially for politicians who are obsessed with their own personal survival, and with elections approaching. It is the nature of the issue, which give it gravitas and makes it megapolitical. Some regard the fact that they have moved off their initial line of defense i.e. the video was the cause–not terrorism, as a shift in the tectonic plates. I am not so sure. I think that has become an indefensible position as more evidence comes in, just as the other sham defense that the Republicans turned down requests for funding has also been debunked. They will need to be more creative than just hunkering down. I think this will get down to two issues: the failure to respond to an imminent threat and the political cover-up. It is not the crime, it is the cover-up–the wisdom of Watergate. Or as Nietsche said the eternal return of all things.

Obama is such a wonderful conversation piece, and mascot for the elites in this country to embrace. He allows them to say, oh sure, we are filthy rich, and don’t you forget it. But we are also egalitarian, just as long as it does not cost us anything. And just as long as we have him to protect us, when the rabble of Paris descend on our palace.

One of the most interesting questions in the whole Benghazi episode is why did the independent review board fail to interview the the deputy director of security. He should have been on anyone’s short list of material witnesses, yet he was not interviewed. No, that is not an oversight. Either he had information which they did not want to hear because it conflicted with the conclusions they wished to draw, or else there is some reason why he is not credible.

I am less troubled by their failure to interview Hillary, because after all they did not interview Panetta who was head of DOD, or Pateraus who was head of the CIA. If I am right, the buck stops with Obama and his inner circle. That is where the undue influence over Mullen and Pickering came from. What they have on the two of them, however, I cannot say. Anyone who tries to hang this one on Hillary is missing the point.

This article by a Maryland professor of economics is apropos of Admin’s warning to “kill Obamacare before it kills you”. (Note: if only the sheeple would wake up and smell the coffee. But they have not, and they will not. Yesterday he was up 2.3%. There is no reckoning with blind stupidity.)

Morici to Moneynews: Obama’s Economic Strategy an ‘Absolute Tragedy’ for US

President Barack Obama’s economic policies are proving disastrous for the country, says Peter Morici, a professor of international business at the University of Maryland.

“The three horses in the apocalypse for the American economy are Obama’s energy policies, . . . excessive business regulation . . . and Obamacare,” he tells Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

The energy policy is “shutting down drilling in the eastern Gulf and off the coast of the Atlantic and Pacific,” Morici says. The amount of regulation that affects the economy has tripled under Obama, raising the cost of capital and keeping people from creating jobs, he says.

Watch our exclusive video. Story continues below.

As for the Affordable Care Act, it’s “a definite negative drag on the economy,” Morici states.

Editor’s Note: ObamaCare Secrets Revealed

“Already, healthcare costs are 50 percent higher than Germany,” he said. “They have a private healthcare system, so do we, and they have better outcomes than we do. Yet ours is more expensive. And Obamacare makes it even more expensive for employers to provide.”

The overall impact of all this isn’t pretty, Morici says.

“No president could have conceived a better program for shutting down jobs creation, collaring growth, and setting America on the path to decline than Mr. Obama’s team,” he states. “It’s an absolute tragedy what’s happening to the United States.”

The playbook calls for increased spending on entitlements without regard for cost and increased regulations without regard for business, Morici says. That’s similar to Italy, France and Spain in the 1960s through ’80s, he says.

“I don’t care to have their new millennium, and I don’t think Americans should either,” he said. “It’s unfortunate, but we’re saddled with this for four more years.”

Discussing April jobs data, Morici said, “it was a pretty decent jobs report as these things go the last several months.”

Unemployment fell to a four-year low of 7.5 percent last month, and non-farm payrolls rose a bigger-than-expected 165,000. March’s payroll gain was revised up to 138,000 from 88,000.

“Not only was this number [April payrolls] up, but that terrible number from March was revised upward,” Morici says.

“So we’re about on the trend we have been, which means the economy is growing slowly,” he said. “We’re not creating enough jobs to really put everybody back to work.”

Without the falling adult participation rate in the workforce, unemployment would be near 10 percent, Morici says. “But certainly we’re not in the soup as we expected we might be.”

Still, the economy’s expansion is disappointing, Morici says. GDP growth has run at a 2.1 percent annual pace over the last 45 months, he states. The comparable figure during the Reagan administration was 5.3 percent.

Speaking of sequester, we have a friend who works for a private contractor at a base near DC who’s office received a letter not from their company but from the govt telling them they are not allowed to speak about sequester to anyone (their co-workers/family) or risk losing their job (obviously, they felt this goes against their 1st amendment rights to free speech which is why they mentioned it to us)! Can the govt threaten folks

Obviously, the demise of his presidency, the sudden discovery that he is not God, and the grim prospect of being relegated to the dust bin of history, rather than Mount Olympus, is getting to him. If Obamacare becomes the disaster many now believe it will, then what legacy will he have other than a first black president? To call him a polarizing figure is a guiness book understatement. With every passing day now he digs himself and his legacy a deeper hole. How unfortunate for those who placed blind faith in a such a charlatan as him.

History will one day show that Obama, even more so than Bush, is personally responsible for destroying an entire way of life which provided prosperity and liberty to the American People. He is the worst of charlatans, and he what he has is not attributes of character, but defects of character, which should never be taught to children. I do not fear him, but I fear the consequences of what he and his enablers in big media have done to this country. Walter Russell Mead whom I have quoted here in the now distant past foretells the nightmare that lies ahead with the collapse of the blue model bequeathed to us by Roosevelt. Obama has introduced the three horsemen of the Apoloclpse described by Peter Morci above, i.e. out of control spending, excessive regulation and Obamacare. I know the elites are mad about the boy, but they need to realize the truth which is that if things do go to hell, they will bear part of the brunt of it, and Obama will not protect them.
————————http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/28/american-challenges-the-blue-model-breaks-down/

Without knowing any more than I do at this point, I am inclined to say this:

1. prior to attack: state department is primarily responsible. However, that does not mean Hillary necessarily. But it does mean Patrick Kennedy.

2. during the attack: department of defense, i.e. Panetta is responsible. CIA is equally responsible. That would be Patreaus.

3. aftermath of attack, i.e. cover-up: white house is responsible. That would be his press people, and the big Irishmen who leak national security secrets to NYT.

The common element, the connecting link at each stage is the cowardly Obama, who was more interested in the campaign than saving American lives, and slept soundly that night. Most people would not agree with me, but I think that is the truth.

I picked up on a comment today by a White House or State department spokesman, that 2 of the 3 witnesses who will appear before Issa’s committee on Wednesday have as he put it “axes to grind”. Well, I suspected they might try that line of attack. That suggests the dims may attempt to turn this into a high tech lynching along with their big media accomplices. But I doubt it will work.

Without knowing any more than I do at this point, I am inclined to say this:

1. prior to attack: state department is primarily responsible. However, that does not mean Hillary necessarily. But it does mean Patrick Kennedy.

2. during the attack: department of defense, i.e. Panetta is responsible. CIA is equally responsible. That would be Patreaus.

3. aftermath of attack, i.e. cover-up: white house is responsible. That would be his press people, and the big Irishmen who leak national security secrets to NYT.

The common element, the connecting link at each stage is the cowardly Obama, who was more interested in the campaign than saving American lives, and slept soundly that night. Most people would not agree with me, but I think that is the truth.
————————————————-

I agree with you and think that is the most reasonable and logical perspective that could be taken. But the wolves are not after BO, they are after Hillary. Her role in the after the fact stuff seems more important to them than their sleeping POTUS. Panetta is goofball. What was ValJar’s part in this?

And Obama has a chemical dependency problem. I also wonder if he was out cold and they could not wake him up when they needed to.

Leanora
May 5, 2013 at 5:43 am
I wouldn’t say I was embarrassed, but I do have one major disagreement with Hillary. When it comes to the murders of 4 Americans – including our Ambassador – I do think it makes a difference who was responsible.
***************

Lu4PUMA
May 6, 2013 at 10:24 pm
—————
You are right, in all respects. This will take Bill’s political skills and genius to turn this thing toward Obama without appearing to do that. The Neandrathals will blame Hillary. The smart people will see the dark mover behind the entire scene and that is Obama. I would be surprised if this goes the way so many people expect. Someone on another blog said–watch to see who on the accuser side targets Hillary–they are in league with Obama vs. those who take the game to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where it rightfully belongs. The latter are the ones you can trust.

I wanna know what was in those emails that were sent to Hillary, that concerned the Big Dawg enough to call in the personal lawyers. Hillary and Bill are lawyers, so it must have been more about what Hillary would like to do vs what the big boys would allow her to do, fresident, CIA, Big Brass.

Most recently, we have learned via John Rosenthal, writing in Newsmax, that the State Department hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to do their security in Libya, a group that celebrates al Qaeda on their Facebook page. (Yes, you read that correctly.) If true, this is like having the Gestapo act as security for the Nuremburg Trials.

Not surprisingly, they quit only days before Ambassador Stephens was killed.

State clearly understands their reputation has been damaged, although I am not sure they realize how severely. Their Accountability Review Board and its chair and vice chair (Ambassador Tom Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen) have now relegated themselves to the dustbin of history. Unbelievably, they never interviewed Hillary Clinton, the woman in charge. Rumor has it Pickering was terrified. (If you want black comic laughs, you read can still read their final report of December 12, 2012 online here. I guess they haven’t mustered up the nerve to take it off yet. They better watch out for the Way Back Machine.)

Now an inspector general will examine the ARB. But who will examine the inspector general? And then where will it lead?

Issa will produce a witness named Mark Thompson. Mark was the deputy chief of counter terrorism for the state department, and a career public servant. He will testify that the counter intelligence bureau was cut out of the decision making with respect to the Benghazi attacks. The dimocrats have produced a statement by Mark’s boss, whose name is Benjamin. The truth cannot be X and not X. Therefore, we must decide which one is believable. Since we have not heard Mark’s testimony yet, and Benjamin may never testify, all we can do at this point is examine their respective biographies and decide who is telling the truth.

1. Mark’s biography was presented by Larry Johnson. Larry knows him personally, and has this to say about him:

“Mark is the kind of person that you as a taxpayer want as an employee of the U.S. Government. He is apolitical and is the most experienced person in the Federal Government dealing with international terrorism matters. He led the FEST (aka Foreign Emergency Support Team) to Kenya in the aftermath of the August 1998 Al Qaeda attacks in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. He also led the FEST to Yemen for crisis response operations following the bombing in October 2000 of the USS Cole. His knowledge, experience and reputation are above challenge. His professional roots are in the US Marine Corps and he has lived his life in accordance with everything that is virtuous and honorable about Marine Officers. If you had to send your son or daughter into combat and could select their commanding officer, you would choose Mark Thompson.”

2. Benjamin’s autobiography on Wiki reads as follows:

“He was a 1983 Marshall Scholar at New College, Oxford where he studied for BA in PPE. He worked as a journalist for TIME MAGAZINE and the Wall Street Journal. He was a scholar on international security. From 1994 to 1999, he served on the National Security Council.[2] He was a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[3][4] He wrote a column for SLATE MAGAZINE.He was a 2004 Berlin prize fellow by the American Academy in Berlin. From December 2006 to May 2009, he served as the Director for the Center on the United States and Europe, and Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution.[5]From 2009 to 2012, he was the US State Department’s Coordinator for counter-terrorism, with the rank of Ambassador-at-Large.[6]

For me, the choice of whom to believe here is not difficult. Mark is a career diplomat. Benjamin is a political appointee. Mark is a guy who has walked the walk. Benjamin is a tourist. Mark is still working for the State Department. Benjamin resigned shortly after Benghazi. Mark is a Marine, who has seen combat. Benjamin is a member of the chattering class, who works for Time and god forbid Slate. Mark earned what he has achieved. Benjamin is a child of priviledge. Mark has seen combat. Benjamin has seen the inside of the Harvard Club. Mark has come forward to testify. Benjamin hides behind a written statement. Two men, two contradictory interpretations, two different worlds. I know full well which of the two I believe.

“Mark is the kind of person that you as a taxpayer want as an employee of the U.S. Government. He is apolitical and is the most experienced person in the Federal Government dealing with international terrorism matters
————————–
Which makes it all curiouser and curiouser–as Alice in Wonderland would say, that Mullen and Pickering chose not to interview him in connection with their vaunted, impartial, exhaustive, conclusive, final, and to use that word idiot Carney is bantering about unimpeachable investigation and report.

Think about it for a minute. Is there anything in Benjamin’s auto bio that would lead you to believe that he knows anything about counter terrorism? National security council–fine. I am telling you this guy is not an operator. He is a staffie–as in Brookings. And he is so typical of the kind of insider that Obama favors when he is not appointing black left wing cronies to key positions. This administration has been a magnet for Harvard people, and the mess they have managed to make of everything they touch tends to prove it.

Most recently, we have learned via John Rosenthal, writing in Newsmax, that the State Department hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to do their security in Libya, a group that celebrates al Qaeda on their Facebook page. (Yes, you read that correctly.) If true, this is like having the Gestapo act as security for the Nuremburg Trials.
————————-
If his Excellency the Harvard/Oxford/Brookings/Time Magazine/Slate reporter/Head of Counter terrorism Benjamin ever deigns to appear before Congress to explain his written statement, then some wag like Trey may choose to gently inquire into this indelicate matter. If I were Bengi bear I might send a Miss Otis Regrets letter, and tell them I would love to appear but the water polo field beckons.

Father of Slain Benghazi SEAL: White House Order Was “Don’t Help Them, Let Them Die”

Charles Woods, the father of murdered Benghazi SEAL Tyrone Woods, accused the White House of watching his son die. Woods told Hannity White House officials watched the attack for seven hours and did nothing.

“I can’t imagine anyone with any heart that would watch a battle rage for seven hours knowing that heroes were there that were going to be slaughtered if you didn’t have help sent in. Because we know that C130s could have been sent there in less than an hour, jets could have been scrambled in minutes from many different parts of the globe. The order was “don’t help them let them die.”

Monday, May 06, 2013
PHILADELPHIA – May 6, 2013 (WPVI) — When President Obama unveiled the Affordable Care Act, he said, “You won’t lose your doctor.” However, thousands in our area say they are because their doctors are changing their practice. The doctors are switching to a concierge or boutique medical practice. Some are doing individually, while others are joining concierge networks, such as MDVIP, Signature MD, or Paragon.
[Increase in fee for patient is $1300+ per patient annually.]
Video at http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=9092697&pid=9092213

” including our Ambassador – I do think it makes a difference who was responsible.
***************

I was embarrassed, actually I am still pretty angry about it.

I had come to expect so much more from her.”
********
I listened to part of that “clip” as background noise last night on the “News”. I need to look for the transcript but my impression was that the “What difference does it make” was a response to questions about who was responsible for the Susan Rice “taking points” not who perpetrated the attack. If that is the case, it was a stupid response at a congressional hearing because it could be easily taken out of context and used for Hillary bashing.

They Wouldn’t Act This Way If Ted Cruz Weren’t Putting Points on the Board

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | May 6th, 2013 at 08:51 PM | 59

RESIZE: AAA

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is upset with Ted Cruz for leading a filibuster against gun control.

John McCain tweeted out the Journal’s editorial in a moment of wackiness.

Bill Richardson, the scandal plagued former Governor of New Mexico, says Ted Cruz can’t be called hispanic despite being hispanic because Ted Cruz isn’t a race baiter like Richardson.

And now Harry Reid calls Ted Cruz a schoolyard bully for Cruz objecting to Harry Reid trying to expand government in a bipartisan fashion.

Most interesting to me is this part of Harry Reid’s statement of frustration:

He pushes everybody around and is losing and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him, but he changes the rules that way no one wins except the bully who tries to indicate to people that he has won.

Harry Reid is right. Ted Cruz is not playing by the rules. The rules have, for years, been that the conservatives sit on the back bench and the let the Senate’s Republican and Democratic leadership collaborate to grow government. The rules say that Senate “adults” can leak to the New York Times about conservative senators, but those conservative senators have to take it.

The rules have been stacked against conservatives and Ted Cruz isn’t playing by those rules. He’s fighting for freedom. We should thank him. His efforts are not alone either. He is tag teaming with Rand Paul and Mike Lee. The three of them are putting the rest of the Senate GOP in the awkward position of finally having a triumvirate by which to be measured.

It was easy when it was just Jim DeMint. They could all largely ignore one man. But that one man worked real hard to get three new young men into the Senate who are playing by new rules. And they are winning in the court of public opinion, they are winning behind the scenes, and their efforts are forcing the rest of the conference to fight with them or be exposed as the schmucks they are.

If Ted Cruz were not putting points on the board, the Wall Street Journal, John McCain, Bill Richardson, Harry Reid, and the rest would not be crying foul. Ted Cruz is winning and they don’t like it that he won’t play the game they designed to marginalize guys like Cruz.

SHV
May 7, 2013 at 8:53 am
——————-
The same could be said for her prior statement taking responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy. At the time, I argued here that CNN true to form was mis-quoting her. That statement might be worth revisiting as well.

Bill Richardson, the scandal plagued former Governor of New Mexico,
—————–
With a corpulent gut, and an ugly mug that closely resembles Sergeant Garcia in the Disney Production Zorro, or maybe just Roly Poly Candy Crowley.

Johnson again suggested Americans were “misled” by the administration into believing there were “protests” that led to the assault, which prompted a forceful response from Clinton: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” she asked in an agitated tone.

Bonaparte: “some men are so physically and morally constituted as to see everything through a highly colored medium. They rise up a picture in their mind in every occasion and give to every trivial event a dramatic meaning. Whatever knowledge or courage they may have in other areas, nature has not formed them for the command of armies, or the direction of great military operations.” He could have been speaking of Obama. Or young Ben Rhoades. Or, both.
———————————

Does Obama Care More About Benghazi Families, or Himself?
Christian Adams (PJ Media, former assistant US Attorney and DOJ whistleblower)

The Benghazi scandal is easy to understand, and that’s what makes it so dangerous for the White House. Simply, the Obama administration’s narrative — that al-Qaeda was on the run, that Hosni Mubarak had to go, and that the Arab Spring was a good thing — was proven false when four brave Americans were killed.
Because the administration was a slave to their own narrative, rather than aggressively fighting al-Qaeda, rather than recognizing the $50 billion investment in Mubarak’s stability, and rather than realizing that the upheaval they sponsored in the Middle East empowered Muslim Brotherhood radicals, they lied repeatedly about Benghazi.

They lied to win re-election, the most vile sort of lie.

Now three whistleblowers are coming forward to testify about the administration’s incompetence and lies in the days following September 11, 2012.
I know a thing or two about being a whistleblower. I appeared on the Huckabee show this weekend (see video below) and explained how simply telling the truth is the way to shield yourself from the sinister deceptions from places like the Huffington Post and the George Soros-funded Media Matters. They can try to smear you, but the truth of your testimony will rise above their smears.

Not only is Benghazi simple to understand, it is revealing: does President Obama care more about the Benghazi families learning the truth regarding why their loved ones died, or does he care more about his own political power?

If his administration continues to lie, obstruct, and unleash attacks on the whistleblowers, we’ll know he just doesn’t care about the Benghazi families.
We will also know Obama will have at last become the thing the bright young activist most loathed — a president who will lie to the public about Americans dying overseas. After all, that’s the central Vietnam narrative of the Left: America, the imperialist nation which callously sends men to die and then hides the truth from the American people.

Pay attention to the people behind Benghazi. Many outside the Beltway don’t understand that policy is driven by the usually nameless inside the government. Day-to-day decisions, drafts, and management of matters is not done by a president, or even by his direct reports. It is done by thirtysomethings like Ben Rhodes:
West Wing advisor Rhodes is an ideological activist who has risen above his level of competency. (On Twitter, he is @Rhodes44.) He is the author of the catastrophic Cairo apology speech. Rhodes was a leading advocate of dumping Mubarak, the man who kept the Islamic radicals at bay in Egypt for decades and kept the peace with Israel. Rhodes was born in 1977, so he doesn’t remember a world before the Camp David Accords where the United States brokered peace between Egypt and Israel, where Mubarak became our man in Cairo.

Rhodes wanted Libya to look like a success, and that’s why he didn’t want a large military footprint in the country. That footprint is what was lacking while the four brave Americans vainly fought for their lives on September 11, 2012.

They died because of the mistakes of Rhodes and others.

They were mistakes of policy, philosophy, and ultimately inaction, and fueled by an aversion to American power. And now, we learn from Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard, Rhodes is also involved with the deception and cover-up.

Officials like Ben Rhodes have a pride of authorship that will cause them to misbehave and deceive. They authored the Obama narrative on the Middle East; they also authored the mess we are in. On September 11, 2012, the mess was revealed, and since then Rhodes and those in power have deceived all of us because they wanted to keep that power.

It doesn’t hurt that Rhodes’ brother is the president of CBS News.

On Wednesday, we’ll see America at her best, when regular citizens make choices that will become history. On Wednesday, men who care more about the truth and the Benghazi families than the president and Ben Rhodes do will testify.

Attention New Yorkers – Especially Those With Children or Grandchildren!!

NY to Give Vaccines to Minors Without Parental Consent
It’s illegal for children to vote. It’s illegal for children to choose to drink alcohol. It’s illegal for children to drive. It’s illegal for children to give consent for medical procedures. Yet, New York is planning to let children give consent for vaccinations, a potentially life-changing or destroying procedure, without parental consent?

Leanora
May 7, 2013 at 10:17 am
—————————–
It was a poor response because it could easily be twisted. Furthermore, it was nuanced and evasive. The question was not whether the false explanation caused the soldiers to die–therein lies the evasion. The question was whether it caused the American People to be mislead on a material fact on the eve of an election.

“The rules have been stacked against conservatives and Ted Cruz isn’t playing by those rules.”
********
Conservative???? What fucking conservatives….every Senator and now House member has to play their assigned role in order to get along. If Ted Cruz is “in trouble”, it isn’t because of political philosophy but because he is rocking the “money boat”.

Two of the best examples of being punished for deviating from the script are Eric Massa and Charlie Rangel. Massa constantly called bulshit on Obamacare and was forced to resign by Nancy and Steny for unspecified “inappropriate” behavior with a male staffer. Charlie for supporting Hillary for too long and calling bullshit on Obama for the conduct of the Iraq war and Obamacare.

Some in the special ops community are speculating that the hearing tomorrow on Benghazi will go sideways. Perhaps. But with Issa as Chairman, I think the chances of that are less likely. On the other hand, it is reported that he and Elija do not have a collegial relationship, unlike their counterparts in the Senate, who eat, drink and socialize and appear on Sunday “news” programs shows together–which makes me a little suspicious. It is fine when democrats and republicans work together for the benefit of the American People, but too often experience has shown that they work together for the benefit of the Washington establishment and that is not a good thing.

I have a good opinion of Ron Wyden (D-Or). More than once he has defied the party line, and now he is doing it again with a bill on campaign finance reform. I have not read the bill, but if the prelimary description I have heard is any indication, it is a step in the right direction, assuming the entire effort is not futile. What gives me pause is the co-sponsor is Murkowski (R-Ak), who is a puppet for the oil company interests.

Conservative???? What fucking conservatives….every Senator and now House member has to play their assigned role in order to get along. If Ted Cruz is “in trouble”, it isn’t because of political philosophy but because he is rocking the “money boat”.
———————–
Then you do not agree with Carville’s assessment of Cruz? As to your basic point about rocking the money boat . . . spot on.

“Then you do not agree with Carville’s assessment of Cruz? As to your basic point about rocking the money boat . . . spot on.”
********
I haven’t researched Cruz but from quips and quotes, I think that he is one of the smartest people in the Senate and possibly one of the few/only conservatives.

“I have a good opinion of Ron Wyden (D-Or). More than once he has defied the party line”
****
I had forgotten about Wyden. He may be the only Liberal left in the Senate. It was Wyden’s amendment to have all “Keystone oil” transported via pipeline and refined in the US, must be sold in the US and was not to be exported, that tipped me off to the fraud of the Keystone street theater.

“The same could be said for her prior statement taking responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy. At the time, I argued here that CNN true to form was mis-quoting her. That statement might be worth revisiting as well.”
*********
I was maybe 1/2 right…here is the context of the “What difference does it make?

“It came in an exchange with Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin. Like many of his colleagues, he goaded. (“I realize that’s a good excuse,” he said when Clinton talked about not interfering with investigations.) She lost her patience when he said, not for the first time, that she could have found out what was going on at the consulate easily enough if she wanted to.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.

Johnson: I understand.

Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. But the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information….But, you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.”

It was not who generated the “talking points” but speculation about “motive” without facts at that point that was “stupid”. Whether she was leading/part of a cover up is a different question than using the “What difference does it make” as an out of context quote that Hillary didn’t care that four people were murdered.

I listened to part of that “clip” as background noise last night on the “News”. I need to look for the transcript but my impression was that the “What difference does it make” was a response to questions about who was responsible for the Susan Rice “taking points” not who perpetrated the attack. If that is the case, it was a stupid response at a congressional hearing because it could be easily taken out of context and used for Hillary bashing.

——-
Here is the actual testimony from Hillary, putting it in context…not as a sound bite that Republican’s are using as their Hillary hating flag.

—

[snip and background…]

But there was, less expectedly, a scene that will surely be replayed in attack ads and echoed (and possibly distorted) in the Republican primary campaign, assuming that Clinton does run. It came in an exchange with Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin. Like many of his colleagues, he goaded. (“I realize that’s a good excuse,” he said when Clinton talked about not interfering with investigations.) She lost her patience when he said, not for the first time, that she could have found out what was going on at the consulate easily enough if she wanted to.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.

Johnson: I understand.

Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?

It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. But the fact is that people were trying in real time to get the best information….But, you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?” In regard to the Republican obsession with Susan Rice’s “Meet the Press” appearance, that is a reasonable question. Perhaps frustration was also driving Clinton, but that’s not how she framed it. What she went on to say is not so controversial: Chase them down first, keep this from happening again. Don’t get caught up in the mystery of hate. The reply would be that knowing why people do things helps to prevent them from happening again.

Funny we were both looking for the transcript at the same time and my conclusion has always been that Hillary was not about to be tied to the Republican Wagon of Hillary’s-Blame-and-Shame, without putting up a fight to answer her side of the event.

We wouldn’t need to obsess IF we had a GOOD President that was making things better rather than worse. Things have stunk to high Heaven since Baracko came to town, and we aren’t going to HOPE and wish on a star that things will all fall into place in an election year.

We are pist, we have been pist and we want REAl change, the kind you get from an election and not golf and throwing parties.

With all do respect, dear Bill, some of us will do our best to drag Hillary into the race if we have any rights as voters at all.

I don’t see any of the weight falling off yet. I can’t imagine him as anything bigger than a house….

Chris Christie’s stomach surgery could help address one nagging question about his political future — can a man that big really be president? But other difficult political work awaits him if he hopes to be the GOP’s nominee in 2016.

With one 40-minute outpatient lap-band procedure in February, Christie legitimized concerns about his weight — while also showing a measure of humility for a governor not known for that emotion, as he talked about wanting to live for the sake of his four children.

Susan Rice to be honored with “Great American Award” for “strengthening the world’s common security
”… The evening gala and awards ceremony — at which Vice President Joe Biden will speak — comes a day before high-ranking state department officials testify at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the terrorist attack that took place at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last year. The witnesses, who Oversight chair Darrell Issa (R-Calf.) is calling “whistleblowers,” are expected to contradict parts of the Obama administration’s narrative about the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks. Specifically, some of the remarks Rice made on the Sunday morning news shows a few days after the incident will be called into question. During her interview with FOX News Sunday, Rice stated the attacks were “a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video” — a statement that was quickly proven false. While Rice admittedly was the Obama administration’s fall guy on Benghazi — a situation that ultimately cost her a bid for Secretary of State — the award still seems ill-considered. But then again, according to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the Benghazi attacks “happened a long time ago.” Perhaps The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies has forgotten about Rice’s role in skewing the narrative….”http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/05/07/susan-rice-to-be-honored-with-great-american-award-for-strengthening-the-worlds-common-security/

True?
Cesar Conda – Marco Rubio’s chief of staff worked for George Soros
Cesar Conda is Marco Rubio’s Chief of Staff. He recently made his Tweets private (protected) so the general public can’t ready them. Cesar Conda has been pushing amnesty for illegals on Twitter and elsewhere as Marco Rubio’s PR agent. Conda, who is an immigration lawyer, went to work for George Soros before becoming Rubio’s Chief of Staf. Cesar Conda worked on the editorial advisory board of George Soros magazine, The International Economy Magazine.
Cesar Conda had been spinning lies about the amnesty bill about how illegal wouldn’t get welfare, wait more than 10 years for citizenship, etc. Those lies have been completely debunked.
Another Rubio spokesperson, Alex Conant, recently compared illegal aliens living and working in this country to the institution of slavery.
So now you understand why Marco Rubio is so gung ho for amnesty. He surrounds himself with a George Soros monkey like Cesar Conda and other idiots like Alex Conant. Sad that Rubio is turning to be such ahttp://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=184319

hta,
Have you heard the ads for Americans for a Conservative Direction that are praising Rubio? He is quoted and praised extensively in the ads. He says that illegal immigrants who get amnesty won’t be elligible for Obamacare! For me that’s a problem! They’ll just end up in the emergency rooms like they already are. And employers may hire them over citizens because they won’t have to pay for their healthcare costs.

Americans for a Conservative Direction is a joke (funded by Mark Zuckerberg).

I’d like to introduce you to “Americans for a Conservative Direction.” It’s got Haley Barbour as the head of it, whose nephew was on the RNC audit committee. He’s joined by Sally Bradshaw of the same RNC Audit Committee. They’ve also got Joel Kaplan of Facebook, Dan Senor whose wife is Campbell Brown formerly of CNN, and Rob Jesmer.

Jesmer, you will recall, headed the National Republican Senatorial Committee and backed Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, Trey Greyson, Bob Bennett, and every other terrible squishy moderate to liberal candidate the GOP could field.

And now they want to call themselves “Americans for a Conservative Direction.”

You know how conservative the direction is they want to go?

They’re already bilking their donors for dollars to support . . .

wait for it . . . seriously . . . wait for it . . .

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Yes, “Americans for a Conservative Direction” are using donor dollars to prop up sweet little Lindsey in South Carolina.

COLD WAR: PUTIN KEEPS KERRY WAITING HOURS
———————
A causus belli perhaps? Or simply borrowing a trick from the Obama playbook? Either way his war horse Teresa will hear about this, and that former KGB operative will rue the day he ever made dear John wait. Frankly, I am beginning to admire Putin. As Spenglar would say, he does not suffer stuffed shirt fools gladly.

Lindsey goes after Hillary’s head in Benghazi, I hope he gets fired too.
——————
They are planning to run a real conservative against him. First woman to graduate from The Citadel. She would certainly get my vote.

holdthemaccountable
May 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm
——————-
And that is where Mary Matalin loses me. She is right when she talks about a new group of leaders who inspire the base. But she is wrong when she throws Marco in that group. Hey Marco–we hardly knew ye, you Trojan Horse.

A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground in Benghazi the night the U.S. Consulate and the CIA annex was attacked by terrorists told Breitbart News that, ultimately, only the President of the United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forces either on the ground or nearby from helping those Americans who were under deadly assault.